If SB 1070 is 'reasonable,' I'm mobster

Only in Arizona would legislators pass a completely unreasonable law that emphasizes the word "reasonable."

This is SB 1070.

The portion of the law that now can go into effect, the so-called "show me your papers" section, reads:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

So, what is "reasonable suspicion"?

In a word: stereotype.

Gov. Jan Brewer says that is not true. So, too, does the former state Senate president and de facto governor, Russell Pearce -- who once lauded the 1950s immigrant roundup called Operation Wetback.

The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board produced a video meant to train law-enforcement officers in a way that "reasonable suspicion" doesn't violate a person's civil rights.

But is that possible?

According to news reports, officers will be told a person's language and ethnicity do not constitute "reasonable suspicion." Other factors must come into play, like clothing, behavior (avoiding eye contact), vague answers to questions.

In other words, more stereotypes.

Imagine for a minute that a member of Arizona law enforcement pulls me over for speeding, something I would never, ever do. The officer looks at my driver's license and notices my last name ends in a vowel. When he asks where I'm from I tell him "back East." He observes that I have a bit of an "attitude" and that when he thanks me for cooperating, I say, "Fuhgeddaboudit."

What if I'm wearing a black shirt and a white tie? What if I'm vague about my destination, saying I'm out looking for a place to buy cannoli? What if I have Sinatra or (more likely) Louis Prima on the car stereo?

Could the officer have a reasonable suspicion that I'm a member of the Mafia?

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of SB 1070 but not the "show me your papers" section. The justices said, essentially, that we couldn't presume constitutional violations would occur. If they do, more lawsuits can be brought. And they will.

After a federal judge decided that the law could go into effect, Alessandra Soler, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, sent out a press release that read, in part, "Latino members of our community should not be subjected to unlawful stops based on their race or perceived immigration status.

Once this 'show me your papers' provision goes into effect, racial profiling will become rampant statewide, as it has been in Maricopa County, and we intend to ramp up our reporting and litigation efforts to seek justice on behalf of the victims of police abuse."

However, if all we'll get from enforcing SB 1070 are more lawsuits, what is the solution to our immigration and border problems?

The best proposal I've heard comes from Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, or at least the version of Flake I spoke with two years ago, before he was running for the U.S. Senate and away from his past.

Flake was a vocal opponent of SB 1070 at the time. He said it wouldn't work. I asked him what would work.

"I've always said there are four elements to a solution," Flake told me for a column in 2010. "First, there is increased border security. Second is interior enforcement at the work site. ... Third is a mechanism for dealing with those who are here illegally now that does not require you to go through the whole process of adjudicating these cases. You're talking 12 million people. Maybe more. That's not doable. Finally, there is the temporary-worker program. I've always thought it would be far easier to secure the border if we could produce a legal framework for people who simply want to come here to work. Then, you can focus on drugs and thugs."